Thoughts on a new decentralized bitcoin foundation

[maurya78]

Yep, as somebody already said, I am happy for the likes of antonopoulos and Andresen to make endorsements and and reimagine the foundation on my behalf

[1715102640]

1715102640

[1715102640]

1715102640

[1715102640]

1715102640

[thms]

Why do we need a foundation? Isn't it about decentralization?

[starsoccer9]

Okay well I am on board with the crowdfunding/bounty idea. My next question is should there be a vote prior to crowd funding or just funding?

Meaning if antonopoulos wanted to go and speak to a goverment on behalf of all users would there be a vote first and if succesfull then crowd funding?

[franky1]

Okay well I am on board with the crowdfunding/bounty idea. My next question is should there be a vote prior to crowd funding or just funding?

Meaning if antonopoulos wanted to go and speak to a goverment on behalf of all users would there be a vote first and if succesfull then crowd funding?

a discussion thread first to name some names of nominee's. then to speak to those nominee's about their desire to take part. and then have them nominee's that show such desire.. post their own 'bounty/crowdfund' address

stage 2 would be while nominee's set up the crowdfunding/bounty, we have a forum where each project/task is described in full and the discussion can be made about what information or agenda should be most relevent. basically if we all wanted andrea's to mention that no government red tape should take longer then 1 month, to allow innovation to occur. then this would be mentioned.

maybe even have mini poll votes on such relevant points to raise and which hold no material weight in reality.. either as mini polls or kind of like upticking discussion post if good, downticking of bad. then we can see what really needs to be said and the person doing such task can get a strategy, idea's and feedplanned before performing the duty..

same goes for development projects. up ticking if an idea's sounds good EG changing to 100sat measurements.. downticking bad idea's such as increasing the reward, decreasing blocktime which both would cause a change in the 21mill total... for example.

i invision a clone of reddit could achieve this.
with subsection for current projects (the crowdfunding) which links to the discussion subsection to plan what the goals, relevant content and tasks should be. where the most positive and best idea's are shown at the top of the list due to upticks (like a vote, but not)

[hdbuck]

just went to the Satoshi Nakamoto's Institute. Very nice..

[Joshuar]

voting is not a problem, centralisation is not a big deal.. the biggest deal is what will the foundation actually achieve??

no point voting on things that will never happen/ have no control over
no point planning things if the expertise is not there
no point having a foundation if its just a worthless entity hosting votes of worthless idea's..

so show us what expertise can be brought to the foundation you propose. and i dont mean coax later, i mean what expertise exists now that will join now happily.
so show us what goals and agenda this new foundation wants to have and what perceived method of completing these goals are.

otherwise its just a forum with alot of polls but no one backing the consensus results of the polls.

im not flaming you for your idea. but please, show some substance

+1, People are taking this decentralization crap too far. I understand the bitcoin protocol itself is decentralized, but that's a whole different story, you can't compare a protocol to human beings(foundation is made up of human beings).  Not everyone(even people who use bitcoin) know much about bitcoin itself. Not everyone can make thoughtful and fair votes.

It's liked asking an artist if they think the stock price for apple will go up next quarter or not, you most likely won't get a thoughtful answer because they're artists, and know art, not stocks, even if the artist uses apple produts..(Similar to how many people use bitcoin but have no idea the tech behind it, or what it accomplishes etc)

You guys are taking the word, decentralization, out of context...stop comparing the bitcoin protocol to humans...

[Wary]

One thing I'd hate to see is various "foundations" competing like political parties and gradually becoming just as corrupt as political parties.  That's not the direction we should be heading in.  Bitcoin has to remain neutral and free from vested interests.

All interests are vested interest. If everybody who wants Bitcoin to go this or that direction is excluded from decision-making, who will make the decisions then? People that do not care?  

Any decision is result of struggle of vested interests, and there is no other way.
The choice is only in the form of this struggle: politics or money. I hate politics just as you do, so I would prefer the money way. Something like croudfunding.

Money should not buy influence in how Bitcoin develops

What should buy it then? Talking on forums? Talk is cheap. If you really want something, you should be ready to pay for it. If you want a feature, pay for the feature.  Isn't it fair?

[BruceFenton]

The Bitcoin Association -- bitcoinassociation.org has committed to move to becoming a Decentralized Autonomous Corporation - totally decentralized.  Founders will have no special votes or abilities.

[DooMAD]

One thing I'd hate to see is various "foundations" competing like political parties and gradually becoming just as corrupt as political parties.  That's not the direction we should be heading in.  Bitcoin has to remain neutral and free from vested interests.

All interests are vested interest. If everybody who wants Bitcoin to go this or that direction is excluded from decision-making, who will make the decisions then? People that do not care?  

Any decision is result of struggle of vested interests, and there is no other way.
The choice is only in the form of this struggle: politics or money. I hate politics just as you do, so I would prefer the money way. Something like croudfunding.

Money should not buy influence in how Bitcoin develops

What should buy it then? Talking on forums? Talk is cheap. If you really want something, you should be ready to pay for it. If you want a feature, pay for the feature.  Isn't it fair?

You seem to have left out the part of the quote was where I said:

If someone has a proposal on the direction of development, that proposal should be judged by it's merit and not by who they are or what self-appointed group they belong to.

And I should append that it also shouldn't be judged by how much money they've thrown at the argument either.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be money involved.  Obviously it needs to be funded somehow.  But people with more money shouldn't have more influence over proposals and voting.  Otherwise you just end up with the equivalent of corporate lobbying where money dictates policy and the majority view counts for nothing.  It needs to be equal and proportionate.  Some form of majority blockchain-based voting system would be paramount, IMO.

[Wary]

If someone has a proposal on the direction of development, that proposal should be judged by it's merit and not by who they are or what self-appointed group they belong to.

A merit for me can be demerit for you. For example, some bitcoiners want more privacy, some want less. How to decide? By majority vote? But voting is a power struggle between two self-appointed groups, fighting for their vested interests, i.e. the thing you want to avoid.

And I should append that it also shouldn't be judged by how much money they've thrown at the argument either.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be money involved.  Obviously it needs to be funded somehow.  But people with more money shouldn't have more influence over proposals and voting.  Otherwise you just end up with the equivalent of corporate lobbying where money dictates policy and the majority view counts for nothing.  It needs to be equal and proportionate.

So, I put $1 into development, risto puts $1,000,000, but both of us would have one vote each. To say it other way, I, with friends, will be controlling risto's money. Is it fair? Corporation controlling people's money is bad, but people controlling corporation's money is bad too. Kickstarter-type system with 1coin - 1vote looks much more fair for me.

[franky1]

If someone has a proposal on the direction of development, that proposal should be judged by it's merit and not by who they are or what self-appointed group they belong to.

A merit for me can be demerit for you. For example, some bitcoiners want more privacy, some want less. How to decide? By majority vote? But voting is a power struggle between two self-appointed groups, fighting for their vested interests, i.e. the thing you want to avoid.

And I should append that it also shouldn't be judged by how much money they've thrown at the argument either.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be money involved.  Obviously it needs to be funded somehow.  But people with more money shouldn't have more influence over proposals and voting.  Otherwise you just end up with the equivalent of corporate lobbying where money dictates policy and the majority view counts for nothing.  It needs to be equal and proportionate.

So, I put $1 into development, risto put $1,000,000, but both of us would have one vote each. To put is other way, I, with friends, will be controlling risto's money. Is it fair? Corporation controlling people's money is bad, but people controlling corporation's money is bad too. Kickstarter-type system with 1coin - 1vote looks much more fair for me.

the system of voting and judging who is best is flawed by things like biased people and those with agenda's
NO ONE should be hoarding peoples money (members fee's)
NO ONE should even ask for members fee's
NO ONE should control/limit the number of idea's that can be voted on
NO ONE should control what is valid or invalid

all that is needed is anyone that has an idea and sets out a plan of actions with achievable goals and proof they will forfil those goals. should simply post a public address to receive donations to cover costs and labour.

that way instead of each member paying many bitcoins for memberships where most gets syphoned off to middlemen. each person in the community can donate as much or as little as they like to the projects they like.

that way if there are plans that benefit corporations then those would get funded. but also anti-corporate idea's wont get pushed aside. as they can be funded too, by ethical businesses or the community that dont like corporations. in the end even the corporations will also help fund community projects as the plans (if at all helpful to bitcoin) will of course help corporations too.

after all good or bad, rich or poor we all agree that we want bitcoin to continue on its path to success.

so stop thinking voting and think bounty/crowdfunding. this will be the true motivation to get projects off the ground

[coindozer7]

This really sounds like somewhat crowdfunding.
In addition, why do we need a foundation for Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is an open decentralized space!

[Slingshot]

Yep, as somebody already said, I am happy for the likes of antonopoulos and Andresen to make endorsements and and reimagine the foundation on my behalf

+1

  Andreas Antonopoulos and Gavin Andresen have my trust, faith, and support too.

 Sometimes it's very tough, and can be quite challenging to rise above. No one can ever be expected to be flawless. These two gentlemen are the types I hope continue to lead Bitcoin. So far they have both shown everyone what true leadership is. Thank You.



Bitcoin is The Future.

[beetcoin]

a new foundation would require the hard hitting people in the industry to join, otherwise it wouldn't have much prestige. but much like others, i don't even see the point in its existence. all it does is give you a bigger profile, which is not necessarily to help bitcoin's development.. but maybe only your own.

people want the power grab from a cryptocurrency that doesn't want centralization.

[franky1]

a new foundation would require the hard hitting people in the industry to join, otherwise it wouldn't have much prestige. but much like others, i don't even see the point in its existence. all it does is give you a bigger profile, which is not necessarily to help bitcoin's development.. but maybe only your own.

people want the power grab from a cryptocurrency that doesn't want centralization.

a true decentralized foundation would be where there is no one 'in power' where the entire community is involved, not just special members. where there is no power, prestige, profile or ego boosting at all..

if you peel away all the layers of uselessness the current foundation has, and kep the core function, then the foundation pretty much can be summed up into 3 area's

1. idea's planned and discussed, suggestions tweaked into something that will help the community
2. jobs listing where people can head hunt certain talents, nominate already known experts, or simply call out to any interested parties
3. form employment / bounties to ensure the idea's become a reality.

all 3 of these area's can be made possible for the whole community to input, self manage, self fund without really any middle men. where the only central part is the domain name which contains all of this information.

EG this forum (bitcointalk) has made many great idea's come into existence, has helped develop many business relationships, employed many people and ad the community scrutinize idea's on their worthiness to actually work in reality.

so something as open as this forum can work. but without being a 'forum' to atleast keep the agenda of bitcoin growth on track and to reduce useless ramblings of trolls.